Slashdot Mirror
Should We Revive Extinct Species? (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
The last male northern white rhinoceros died just last week, and a total of just 29,000 rhinoceroses now remain on earth. But National Geographic reports that "the genetic material of several northern white rhinos has been stored away," and scientists hope to give birth to another using in vitro fertilization -- or to breed a hybrid using a genetically similar southern white rhino.
Meanwhile, a postdoctoral fellow in ecology and evolutionary biology reports that scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago. Thanks to the data I compiled as well as cutting-edge machine learning approaches to analyze those data, my colleagues and I were able to reconstruct the Carolina parakeets' likely range and climate niche, [which] turned out to be much smaller than previously believed... While this may seem rather minor, some scientists consider the Carolina parakeet one of the top candidates for 'de-extinction', a process in which DNA is harvested from specimens and used to "resurrect" extinct species... If someone were to spend millions of dollars doing all of the genetic and breeding work to bring back this species, or any other, how will they figure out where to release these birds...? Whether or not de-extinction is a worthwhile use of conservation effort and money is another question, best answered by someone other than me. But this is just an example of one potential use of this type of research. "
It seems like all kinds of havoc could ensue if we released a resurrected species back into the modern ecosystem. And yet Harvard researchers are already working to breed a new creature that's half-elephant, half Wooly Mammoth.
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should we revive extinct species?
Meanwhile, a postdoctoral fellow in ecology and evolutionary biology reports that scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago. Thanks to the data I compiled as well as cutting-edge machine learning approaches to analyze those data, my colleagues and I were able to reconstruct the Carolina parakeets' likely range and climate niche, [which] turned out to be much smaller than previously believed... While this may seem rather minor, some scientists consider the Carolina parakeet one of the top candidates for 'de-extinction', a process in which DNA is harvested from specimens and used to "resurrect" extinct species... If someone were to spend millions of dollars doing all of the genetic and breeding work to bring back this species, or any other, how will they figure out where to release these birds...? Whether or not de-extinction is a worthwhile use of conservation effort and money is another question, best answered by someone other than me. But this is just an example of one potential use of this type of research. "
It seems like all kinds of havoc could ensue if we released a resurrected species back into the modern ecosystem. And yet Harvard researchers are already working to breed a new creature that's half-elephant, half Wooly Mammoth.
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should we revive extinct species?
I want to shoot one.
If Man caused the extinction, then itâ(TM)s s moral duty to bring them back. If OTOH, they died from natural causes from nature, then probably not.
Yes, please... Let's start with the NES Classic.
No.
Qualifier: maybe if they taste good, we should consider it seriously...mammoth steak, mmmmmm....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
>> ...scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago.
No it didn't. It was simply stunned, and pining for the fjords.
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
--PeterM
Didn't anyone pay attention to that documentary?
Jurassic Park?
Really?
Then obviously no. But if it was caused by human intervention like over hunting etc, then obviously yes.
Of course we should and it may be worth "any amount of money" if that answer the question ...
Having an actual more diverse world in the non-leftist way totally have a value and humans killed most of them in the first place.
Now if we talked people groups and culling away the mix-breeds then I could see how some would be upset. But then again .. not mixing shit up in the first place or even suggesting there's different people living in different places in the world upset those people too. (And supposedly it's very upsetting if some people on a pacific island had elected(?) the dad of Pippi Longstocking as their king but of course(?) totally fine to have a Muslim or black person as a representator in the Swedish parliament. Because double standards and hypocrisy and shit doesn't have to be logical, just, consistent or make any sense whatsoever.)
Might be nice if we made a decision, as a species, about whether we are a part of or separate from the earth's ecosystem.
This half-in/half-out status dooms both organisms.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Deposit some sludge on Mars and/or Titan, grab some popcorn, sit back, and let the Eukaryota do their work.
The Carolina parakeet is an excellent candidate for re-establishment -- a beautiful bird, driven to extinction by a foolish fashion that valued the tail feather.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I Want One!
Both Left and Right have them: The Evangelicals who think the world is 5,000 years old, and the Animists who believe that every species should be preserved, no matter the cost. Both sides refuse to acknowledge evolution. It is amusing to note how many of the self-righteous latter are so critical of the former.
I could really use some extra crispy dodo with the Colonel’s secret recipe right now.
In the name of Reciprocity! Our species might need extinction reversal someday..It's "a do unto others" thing...
Simple question, simple answer.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
In Venezuela, there used to be "Gavialiloids", but they went extint (Ikanogavialis and heserogavialis, for example).
These were relatives of the Gavialis in India and indonesia, but those are close to extintion (because of antropogenic factors in their habitats).
There are conservation efforts in ceratin zoos (San Diego in particular is very active in this conservation effort), but nothing in the wild.
Since the Gavialis is not a danger to humans (they mostly eat fish, their long narrow snouts are too fragile for bigger pray), it would be nice to re-introduce them in the wild in the former habitat of their cousins, specialy in areas where "bad fish" abound (think piranhas and electric eels - Electrophorus electricus)...
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Really? Like, for example?
As far as comparative effectiveness of funding, as a society we do all sorts of stupid misprioritization of funding all the time anyway; at least species revival can result in new scientific knowledge along the way.
If the species is not a threat to humans, why not?
What practical benefit is there? It would be tremendously interesting - like seeing a coelacanth swimming around, and knowing this thing has been unchanged for 400 million years.
The process of reviving an extinct species could advance science as well, so bonus there.
How do ya feel about smallpox?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
As much as diversity is important in ecosystems, reviving extinct species seems like an expensive and frivolous exercise if the environment isn't also somehow changed so that the species would this time survive and reach a stable population. What are the chances of that, with the concurrent mass extinction of so many other species during the Anthropocene?
If cows ever go extinct it'll be because humans have gone extinct.
Honestly, humanity is probably going to go away.
Yes, there's almost a 100% certainty that we will go away in another trillion years or so. I'm not sure how the rest of your comment follows from that.
I doubt that bringing back Carolina Parakeets, or Passenger Pigeons, would have the same risks as bringing back a T-Rex.
BTW: Jurassic Park was run stupidly. The dinosaurs should be kept in deep pits. Zoos have been doing this for over a century.
You should only revive a species if you can supply it a habitat to live in.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Will the Harvard researchers creating the hybrid elephant/mammoth cause the school to use a new mascot, "The Wooly Bully?"
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Should we revive the extinct insects as well? Keep a bunch of bees DNA, we surely will need some soon.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
you bred raptors
We should do it once and develop all the necessary technology. That way, when and if we NEED to de-extinct a species in the future, we can.
Before experimenting with DNA for 1-2 species, we should stop the mass extinctions in the first place.
aaaaaaa
As for the question of should one only has to consider the fossil record. If you do not learn how to bring the extinct back then the best you can hope is that someone somewhere stepped in the wrong sand pit and it currently leaving a really nice impression as they petrify.
I expect that once field ready PCR is available some kind of public Merkel tree of DNA codes should be assembled. (Insert DNAcoin cryptocurrency joke here.) Just the deltas need to be kept like in this "Git repository of code" the same way we do with human DNA records. It's a literal tree of life. Then the race is on to scan in everything you can before it dies.
After that it is just a matter of making tools that can turn the DNA back into living stuff. Now you have an instant backup of the planet's ecosystem, from bacteria and virii and molds to your neighbor Steve and his dog. Throw it in a can attached to a light sail. Stop worrying about the death of the Sun.
Start worrying about competing with other species that had the same idea and are about to show up on your doorstep.
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
and restore it to its natural habitat, roaming the halls of power eating everything in a suit or golf shirt.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
But smarter people (like the ones who may have done the research necessary to use DNA from dead extinct animals to create new viable offsprings) should make up their mind about it based on careful ethical considerations. They should, of course, ignore slashdot and the even-dumber "public opinion" when doing it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I'd like to see some of the 'giant' land animals reintroduced.
imagine giant sloths once again majestically striding across the land...
A somewhat more timely issue that requires the same level of debate is
Should we terraform Mars?
The impacts on the rest of the solar system would be subtle yet possibly devastating. The answer to this question could have a profound effect on the stock markets and the future of video poker.
Isn't today April Fools day?
why it went extinct, I think "reviving" any species is not a good idea and may have unknown consequences. And we're not likely to completely figure out the underlying reasons of an extinction. As someone said, if we don't correct the causes (and I don't know how we could do that if we don't completely know them), it will go extinct again anyway. And if we just do this out of sheer historical preservation and keep some species alive in artificial conditions, it's kind of perverse in a way. Living beings are not museum objects.
I thought politicians became statesmen after their deaths.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
You know neither how much genetic variation could be uncovered from extant specimens nor how much is necessary for survival.
Cheetahs are essentially clones and have survived extinction for 10K years since their last evolutionary bottleneck. Their genetic variation is consistent with a historical reduction in total population to a single pregnant individual.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
They were deliberately exterminated.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
Economics does not work that way. There is no basis for asserting that de-extinction would lessen support for preserving existing species. That is a fictional trade-off. While there must be a trade off between de-extinction funding and alternatives among total global expenditures, the combination of goods and services substituted for to fund de-extinction in their stead could by any: An orange spray-on tan, your girlfriend's birth control pills, a neighbor's Toyota Corolla, the next season of the Roseanne show.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
How can something go the way of the dodo if it comes back?
Why is this story tagged with Silent Running? That wasn't about bringing back extinct species, but saving the ones we have.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Did it ever occur to anyone that they are extinct for a reason? It was like everyone thought it would be such a great idea bringing back the wolf to Yellowstone. There's a reason they were hunted to extinction in these parts. They are devastating the deer and elk populations and they kill just for fun. They are a nuisance and should be annihilated as they previously were before someone idiot had the stupid idea to bring them back.